I am as opposed to this as I was to those attempts to ban the word 'homosexual' (and its synonyms) from the classroom--they are opposite ends of the same idiotic coin. Schools should be concerned with identifying and teaching those things which are pertinent and true, not with pandering or ideological recruitment.

As an undergraduate, I took an upper-level history course on the founding of the United States. The professor, who was a black woman, assigned only books about slavery during the Revolution, the women of the Revolution, Native Americans and the Revolution, etc. She spoke incessantly on those topics alone. Toward the end of the semester, a friend of mine pointed out to her and to the class that we hadn't yet read or spoken a word about Thomas Jefferson. Should Abigail Adams come up in a lecture about the founders? Yes. Should an entire semester be devoted to hammering away at every single female contribution to the Age of the Revolution? No.

Let relevance and veracity determine the curriculum, at every level of education.

California...the state where every wrong decision must be made before a right one can be made.

Next up for Fuckifornia....removing the death penalty, removing voter approval to raise taxes (yes you read that right), letting school districts tax you with no limit, giving gang members tax money to become gang-interventionists (thank you Janice Hahn).

ZEB wrote:One more reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. As this behavior is legitimized it seeps into the classroom and into our children's minds.

Thankfully I don't live in California, but if I did they would know how I feel very quickly.

Okay...so let's have the kids grow up ignorant of alternative lifestyles. Let's just pretend homosexuals and any alternative lifestyle doesn't exist. The "behavior" as you call it, as if it's a choice, is already legitimized. The proper thing to do is teach it, think about, and move on. It's part of society. It would like ignoring slavery or the Civil Rights movement.

smh23 wrote:I am as opposed to this as I was to those attempts to ban the word 'homosexual' (and its synonyms) from the classroom--they are opposite ends of the same idiotic coin. Schools should be concerned with identifying and teaching those things which are pertinent and true, not with pandering or ideological recruitment.

As an undergraduate, I took an upper-level history course on the founding of the United States. The professor, who was a black woman, assigned only books about slavery during the Revolution, the women of the Revolution, Native Americans and the Revolution, etc. She spoke incessantly on those topics alone. Toward the end of the semester, a friend of mine pointed out to her and to the class that we hadn't yet read or spoken a word about Thomas Jefferson. Should Abigail Adams come up in a lecture about the founders? Yes. Should an entire semester be devoted to hammering away at every single female contribution to the Age of the Revolution? No.

Let relevance and veracity determine the curriculum, at every level of education.

Yeah, your teacher was off base. Now, if it had been "Women and the Revolution" or "Minorities and the Revolution" I could understand her reading choices. I had an entire history class on the history of slavery from the first Africans brought here to the Civil War. It was interesting to learn that they were originally indentured servants and some (albeit very few) actually became rich and owned Africans themselves. As their rights were taken away, they were marginalized and finally did end up becoming slaves. But it was interesting to learn that it took a few generations for this to happen.

I think that teaching this, in the course of teaching recent history and current events is okay, as long as it's not the center of a whole course (unless you're in college and they can do that kind of thing). The video is just a big white box for me so I do not know exactly what was said, but trying to force a political agenda or something similar in an educational setting should never be done.

smh23 wrote:I am as opposed to this as I was to those attempts to ban the word 'homosexual' (and its synonyms) from the classroom--they are opposite ends of the same idiotic coin. Schools should be concerned with identifying and teaching those things which are pertinent and true, not with pandering or ideological recruitment.

As an undergraduate, I took an upper-level history course on the founding of the United States. The professor, who was a black woman, assigned only books about slavery during the Revolution, the women of the Revolution, Native Americans and the Revolution, etc. She spoke incessantly on those topics alone. Toward the end of the semester, a friend of mine pointed out to her and to the class that we hadn't yet read or spoken a word about Thomas Jefferson. Should Abigail Adams come up in a lecture about the founders? Yes. Should an entire semester be devoted to hammering away at every single female contribution to the Age of the Revolution? No.

Let relevance and veracity determine the curriculum, at every level of education.

Yeah, your teacher was off base. Now, if it had been "Women and the Revolution" or "Minorities and the Revolution" I could understand her reading choices. I had an entire history class on the history of slavery from the first Africans brought here to the Civil War. It was interesting to learn that they were originally indentured servants and some (albeit very few) actually became rich and owned Africans themselves. As their rights were taken away, they were marginalized and finally did end up becoming slaves. But it was interesting to learn that it took a few generations for this to happen.

I think that teaching this, in the course of teaching recent history and current events is okay, as long as it's not the center of a whole course (unless you're in college and they can do that kind of thing). The video is just a big white box for me so I do not know exactly what was said, but trying to force a political agenda or something similar in an educational setting should never be done.

Don't get me wrong, I recognize the place that women and racial/ethnic/religious minorities have in history. I too spent a lot of my time studying slavery and Reconstruction. My point had more to do with the fact that the class in question could not have justifiably come and gone without a substantial amount of time devoted to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin at the very least. It is part of a trend in the university system, sort of an overreaction to a history of chauvinism on Academe's part .

ZEB wrote:One more reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. As this behavior is legitimized it seeps into the classroom and into our children's minds.

Thankfully I don't live in California, but if I did they would know how I feel very quickly.

Okay...so let's have the kids grow up ignorant of alternative lifestyles. Let's just pretend homosexuals and any alternative lifestyle doesn't exist. The "behavior" as you call it, as if it's a choice, is already legitimized. The proper thing to do is teach it, think about, and move on. It's part of society. It would like ignoring slavery or the Civil Rights movement.

Again, I ask, will the homosexuals unparralled contribution to the spread of AIDS be taught in this so called history class?

Heres the whole video...I lol'd at several parts. Especially when they walked up to the apartment and the narrarator said "payment would be expected" and the next scene was him walking out the police station.

ZEB wrote:One more reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. As this behavior is legitimized it seeps into the classroom and into our children's minds.

Thankfully I don't live in California, but if I did they would know how I feel very quickly.

Okay...so let's have the kids grow up ignorant of alternative lifestyles. Let's just pretend homosexuals and any alternative lifestyle doesn't exist. The "behavior" as you call it, as if it's a choice, is already legitimized. The proper thing to do is teach it, think about, and move on. It's part of society. It would like ignoring slavery or the Civil Rights movement.

Come on now you're smarter than this post indicates I'm sure of it.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with civil rights. Being born black is genetic. There is ZERO proof that homosexuality is genetic. And in fact a great deal of evidence that it has more to do with environment. In the end it is an act.

I don't want my tax dollars being spent on teachers explaining homosexuality to children. And many teachers are there (in most cases) to push an agenda when they can. I know you are aware that teachers by and large are liberal. Therefore a liberal slant is placed on everything social.

We as a country are already behind on math and science scores world wide. And YOU want us to spend how much time talking about homosexuals? If kids have questions then of course parents can answer them, certainly NOT teachers --that's actually laughable.

ZEB wrote:One more reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. As this behavior is legitimized it seeps into the classroom and into our children's minds.

Thankfully I don't live in California, but if I did they would know how I feel very quickly.

Okay...so let's have the kids grow up ignorant of alternative lifestyles. Let's just pretend homosexuals and any alternative lifestyle doesn't exist. The "behavior" as you call it, as if it's a choice, is already legitimized. The proper thing to do is teach it, think about, and move on. It's part of society. It would like ignoring slavery or the Civil Rights movement.

Children are ignorant because of school. Public school is not about educating children but rather indoctrinating them into the statist system.

Maybe we could teach the kids the following information about homosexuality. But for some reason I doubt that there would be any real facts taught by the "teachers":

The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. Many ?committed? homosexual relationships only last a few years. This raises doubts as to whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.

A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even ?committed? relationships.

A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. ( Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978) .

Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many ?lesbian? women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)

Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within ?committed? gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly ?committed? relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam . AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years . (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York . 1984)

In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)

The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that ?gay liberation was founded ? on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.? (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)

B. Among homosexuals, highly risky sexual practices such as anal sex are very common.

The majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8) As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. ( www.netdoctor.co.uk;www.gayhealthchannel.com; )

There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex. Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who ever had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV than those who never engaged in anal sex. (Valleroy L, et al. HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. JAMA. 2000; 284: 198-204.)

The term ?barebacking? refers to intentional unsafe anal sex. In a study of HIV-positive gay men, the majority of participants (84%) reported engaging in barebacking in the past three months, and 43% of the men reported recent bareback sex with a partner who most likely is not infected with HIV, therefore putting another man at risk of contracting HIV. (Halkitis PN. Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care. 2003; 15: 367-78.)

While many homosexuals are aware of HIV risk, a large number are unaware of the increased risk of contracting non-HIV STDs, many of which have serious complications or may not be curable . (K-Y lubricant and the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association survey )

While ?always? condom use reduces the risk of contracting HIV by about 85%, Condoms, even when used 100% of the time, fail to give adequate levels of protection against many non-HIV STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Herpes, Genital Warts and others. The only safe sex is, apart from abstinence, mutual monogamy with an uninfected partner. (Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know. Medical Institute for Sexual Health. 2002)

C. Homosexuals have very high rates of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV which pose a major burden to the health service.

Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada . HIV and AIDS in Canada . November 2004) .

The recently observed dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles , San Francisco , but also in London and Manchester , UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhoea, and syphilis worsening in western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)

D. There are increased rates of mental ill health among the homosexual population compared to the general population. Many studies show much higher rates of psychiatric illness, such as depression, suicide attempts and drug abuse among homosexuals then among the general population. The homosexual lifestyle is associated with a shortened life expectancy of up to 20 years.

In a New Zealand study, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people. At the age of 21, homosexuals/bisexuals were at fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide. (Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.)

In a recent US study of the mental health of homosexuals, it was found that gay/bisexual men had a more than 3-fold increased risk of major depression and a five-fold increased risk of panic disorder. They were three times as likely to rate their mental health as only ?fair? or ?poor? and to experience high levels of distress. Gay/bisexual women had a nearly four-fold increased risk of general anxiety disorder and both groups were more than three times as likely than the general population to require treatment in a mental health setting. (Cochran S. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States . J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71 :53-61.)

It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among homosexuals are the result of ?homophobia?. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder (?manic depression?), agoraphobia , obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)

Furthermore, if ?homophobia? and prejudices were the cause of the high rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide attempts among homosexuals, one would similarly expect to find higher rates of suicide attempts and suicide among ethnic minorities exposed to racism. However, this is not usually the case.

In a Vancouver study, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, it is estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. (Hogg RS et al. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Epidemiology.1997; 26:657-61 )

3. Homosexuality and pedophilia .

Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable

One well known historic example on the link between homosexuality and pedophilia is found in ancient Greece . Greek mythology is saturated with stories of pedophilia and ancient Greek literature praises pedophilia. The age group of boys that were used for ?sexual pleasure? was probably in the range of 12-17. Male prostitution was very common with brothels in which boys and young men were available. There is evidence for an extensive trade in boys . (Churchill W. Homosexual Behavior among Males. Hawthorn. New York . 1967)

There are links between pedophilia and homosexuality. The political scientist Prof. Mirkin wrote in a paper that: ?pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition?? (Mirkin H. The pattern of sexual politics: feminism, homosexuality and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1-24.). There is an overlap between the ?gay movement? and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable through organisations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), as admitted by David Thorstad, Co-founder of NAMBLA writing in the Journal of Homosexuality. (Thorstad D. Man/boy love and the American gay movement. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990; 20 : 251-74)

The number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%. (Statistics Canada found only 1% of the population who described themselves as homosexual.) However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%. (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.) Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.